Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Rating Inflation

Expand Messages
  • Geoff Wootten
    Look guys, we go through this every few months. Lets be clear about it: the simple truth is that GOD is an ENGLISHMAN. Nuff said. Geoff ... system ... Consider
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Look guys, we go through this every few months. Lets be clear about
      it: the simple truth is that GOD is an ENGLISHMAN.

      Nuff said.


      Geoff

      --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "COL (Ret) Bill Gray"
      <hmgs1@h...> wrote:
      >
      > Personally I kinda agree with you on this, and in reality the LAF
      system
      > actually supports your conclusion in a hidden, discreet way.
      Consider
      > this, if you take a look at Empire III+, the ACE (Actual Combat
      > Effectiveness) of the lowest regular troop type is 8 (Conscript
      Line)
      > while Guards have an ACE of 18. IIRC, and assuming all other
      factors are
      > equal, this means that on a head to head matchup the Guards have a
      100%
      > to win - an automatic victory.
      >
      > In LAF under the same conditions the only advantage the Guards
      (Elite)
      > would have is a +2 to the die roll, which still gives the lowly
      > Conscripts a decent chance of victory though certainly the Elites
      have
      > the advantage. In other words, while there might be a lot of Elites
      in
      > the game, this designation has not near the impact as in other
      games.
      > Thus if you would like to reduce the number of Elites in the game,
      > really no problem here on my part. In the final measure the Troop
      Rating
      > is somewhat subjective anyway, and even if you made the entire
      British
      > army Regular status, the results would not be as severe as one
      might think.
      >
      > There are a lot of reasons why I made the game this way, but one is
      just
      > a personal belief that so-called Elite troops during this period
      were
      > not THAT much better, certainly not as much as some game systems
      would
      > have you believe.
      >
      > Regards, Bill Gray
      >
      > Bouko J. de Groot wrote:
      >
      > >Hi all,
      > >
      > >The unit rating chart says "Modifications and suggestions are not
      only welcome, but encouraged.", so here is my try.
      > >
      > >When I show the rules to players not familiar with it, a standard
      remark is " Well, the British have a lot of Elite ... and ALL their
      cavalry and artilley is Elite? Hmmm ..." and I have to agree. A
      similar statement might be made about the French, although they have
      a few lower ratings toward the end. Then when I look at the
      other, 'lesser known' armies, most of them seem to have a more
      balanced build up.
      > >
      > >So the question I then get is "Why?" followed by examples of why
      ratings should be more, or less (especially of the British, as my
      friends and I are Dutch). To name but a few:
      > > - Revolutionary War's British in Flanders were noted by other
      countries as below average or at least not above it.
      > > - the artillery did not perform all that Elite at Waterloo, if
      one reads non-British accounts
      > > - the heavy cavalry was confident and had big horses, but being
      impetuous does not make one Elite, and how come the British ally
      Hannover has similar ratings (except for the Hussars that all seem to
      get the blame for that 'famous' regiment that fled to Brussels when
      they were ordered to advance in the oppostie direction).
      > >Of course, there are also examples of other countries, like the
      conscript French foreign line cavalry regiments that once were
      regular in their own army, and a lot of examples each national can
      give of why certain units should be Elite or whatever.
      > >
      > >It seems to me that the more is known about a particular army, the
      better it will be ... more and more units are singled out to be
      Elite. Like an inflation of ratings.
      > >
      > >Pesonally I always felt that most Elite units did not deserve the
      status, especially after they were on the march for more than a
      couple of weeks. At least what I understood of memoires etc is that
      attrition by illness, accidents, skirmishes etc soon diluted the
      percentage of Elite persons with new ones taken either from line
      units or (more often? What commander wants to lose his best men?)
      from depots and recruits back home. This is espcecially true of
      cavalry, that had even bigger problems with their horses (here the
      French were worse off than the others, IIRC). Of course, one might
      then state that the same goes for other units, so the overall rating
      goes down all across the line. But we use a fixed upper and lower
      limit, so that does not work.
      > >Many 'elite' units would also have far better PR (both before and
      after battles) then their non-elite and foreign colleagues, adding to
      their perceived but undeserved status.
      > >
      > >My question then is: Why do we not restrict the number of Elites
      in an army to an absolute minimum? If needed, you could give units
      a '-' for not having been in battle before or a '+' for being very
      experienced, although that would add extra ratings (and lots of
      discussion) and I personally think the limit of ratings to 3 is
      better (and after all, we still have the die to make that kind of
      differences for us).
      > >
      > >Bouko
      > >
      > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • mrieder@uwo.ca
      Geoff: As per the old adage, I recall when a sage of the 19th century was asked Why the sun never set on the British Empire , he replied, Not even God would
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Geoff:

        As per the old adage, I recall when a sage of the 19th century was asked "Why
        the sun never set on the British Empire", he replied, "Not even God would trust
        an Englishman in the dark"

        MJR

        > Look guys, we go through this every few months. Lets be clear about
        > it: the simple truth is that GOD is an ENGLISHMAN.
        >
        > Nuff said.
        >
        >
        > Geoff
        >
        > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "COL (Ret) Bill Gray"
        > <hmgs1@h...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Personally I kinda agree with you on this, and in reality the LAF
        > system
        > > actually supports your conclusion in a hidden, discreet way.
        > Consider
        > > this, if you take a look at Empire III+, the ACE (Actual Combat
        > > Effectiveness) of the lowest regular troop type is 8 (Conscript
        > Line)
        > > while Guards have an ACE of 18. IIRC, and assuming all other
        > factors are
        > > equal, this means that on a head to head matchup the Guards have a
        > 100%
        > > to win - an automatic victory.
        > >
        > > In LAF under the same conditions the only advantage the Guards
        > (Elite)
        > > would have is a +2 to the die roll, which still gives the lowly
        > > Conscripts a decent chance of victory though certainly the Elites
        > have
        > > the advantage. In other words, while there might be a lot of Elites
        > in
        > > the game, this designation has not near the impact as in other
        > games.
        > > Thus if you would like to reduce the number of Elites in the game,
        > > really no problem here on my part. In the final measure the Troop
        > Rating
        > > is somewhat subjective anyway, and even if you made the entire
        > British
        > > army Regular status, the results would not be as severe as one
        > might think.
        > >
        > > There are a lot of reasons why I made the game this way, but one is
        > just
        > > a personal belief that so-called Elite troops during this period
        > were
        > > not THAT much better, certainly not as much as some game systems
        > would
        > > have you believe.
        > >
        > > Regards, Bill Gray
        > >
        > > Bouko J. de Groot wrote:
        > >
        > > >Hi all,
        > > >
        > > >The unit rating chart says "Modifications and suggestions are not
        > only welcome, but encouraged.", so here is my try.
        > > >
        > > >When I show the rules to players not familiar with it, a standard
        > remark is " Well, the British have a lot of Elite ... and ALL their
        > cavalry and artilley is Elite? Hmmm ..." and I have to agree. A
        > similar statement might be made about the French, although they have
        > a few lower ratings toward the end. Then when I look at the
        > other, 'lesser known' armies, most of them seem to have a more
        > balanced build up.
        > > >
        > > >So the question I then get is "Why?" followed by examples of why
        > ratings should be more, or less (especially of the British, as my
        > friends and I are Dutch). To name but a few:
        > > > - Revolutionary War's British in Flanders were noted by other
        > countries as below average or at least not above it.
        > > > - the artillery did not perform all that Elite at Waterloo, if
        > one reads non-British accounts
        > > > - the heavy cavalry was confident and had big horses, but being
        > impetuous does not make one Elite, and how come the British ally
        > Hannover has similar ratings (except for the Hussars that all seem to
        > get the blame for that 'famous' regiment that fled to Brussels when
        > they were ordered to advance in the oppostie direction).
        > > >Of course, there are also examples of other countries, like the
        > conscript French foreign line cavalry regiments that once were
        > regular in their own army, and a lot of examples each national can
        > give of why certain units should be Elite or whatever.
        > > >
        > > >It seems to me that the more is known about a particular army, the
        > better it will be ... more and more units are singled out to be
        > Elite. Like an inflation of ratings.
        > > >
        > > >Pesonally I always felt that most Elite units did not deserve the
        > status, especially after they were on the march for more than a
        > couple of weeks. At least what I understood of memoires etc is that
        > attrition by illness, accidents, skirmishes etc soon diluted the
        > percentage of Elite persons with new ones taken either from line
        > units or (more often? What commander wants to lose his best men?)
        > from depots and recruits back home. This is espcecially true of
        > cavalry, that had even bigger problems with their horses (here the
        > French were worse off than the others, IIRC). Of course, one might
        > then state that the same goes for other units, so the overall rating
        > goes down all across the line. But we use a fixed upper and lower
        > limit, so that does not work.
        > > >Many 'elite' units would also have far better PR (both before and
        > after battles) then their non-elite and foreign colleagues, adding to
        > their perceived but undeserved status.
        > > >
        > > >My question then is: Why do we not restrict the number of Elites
        > in an army to an absolute minimum? If needed, you could give units
        > a '-' for not having been in battle before or a '+' for being very
        > experienced, although that would add extra ratings (and lots of
        > discussion) and I personally think the limit of ratings to 3 is
        > better (and after all, we still have the die to make that kind of
        > differences for us).
        > > >
        > > >Bouko
        > > >
        > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Andrew Deans
        well said, stated the proud Scot! ... From: mrieder@uwo.ca To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:32 PM Subject: Re:
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          well said, stated the proud Scot!
          :)
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: mrieder@...
          To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:32 PM
          Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rating Inflation


          Geoff:

          As per the old adage, I recall when a sage of the 19th century was asked "Why
          the sun never set on the British Empire", he replied, "Not even God would trust
          an Englishman in the dark"

          MJR

          > Look guys, we go through this every few months. Lets be clear about
          > it: the simple truth is that GOD is an ENGLISHMAN.
          >
          > Nuff said.
          >
          >
          > Geoff
          >
          > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "COL (Ret) Bill Gray"
          > <hmgs1@h...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Personally I kinda agree with you on this, and in reality the LAF
          > system
          > > actually supports your conclusion in a hidden, discreet way.
          > Consider
          > > this, if you take a look at Empire III+, the ACE (Actual Combat
          > > Effectiveness) of the lowest regular troop type is 8 (Conscript
          > Line)
          > > while Guards have an ACE of 18. IIRC, and assuming all other
          > factors are
          > > equal, this means that on a head to head matchup the Guards have a
          > 100%
          > > to win - an automatic victory.
          > >
          > > In LAF under the same conditions the only advantage the Guards
          > (Elite)
          > > would have is a +2 to the die roll, which still gives the lowly
          > > Conscripts a decent chance of victory though certainly the Elites
          > have
          > > the advantage. In other words, while there might be a lot of Elites
          > in
          > > the game, this designation has not near the impact as in other
          > games.
          > > Thus if you would like to reduce the number of Elites in the game,
          > > really no problem here on my part. In the final measure the Troop
          > Rating
          > > is somewhat subjective anyway, and even if you made the entire
          > British
          > > army Regular status, the results would not be as severe as one
          > might think.
          > >
          > > There are a lot of reasons why I made the game this way, but one is
          > just
          > > a personal belief that so-called Elite troops during this period
          > were
          > > not THAT much better, certainly not as much as some game systems
          > would
          > > have you believe.
          > >
          > > Regards, Bill Gray
          > >
          > > Bouko J. de Groot wrote:
          > >
          > > >Hi all,
          > > >
          > > >The unit rating chart says "Modifications and suggestions are not
          > only welcome, but encouraged.", so here is my try.
          > > >
          > > >When I show the rules to players not familiar with it, a standard
          > remark is " Well, the British have a lot of Elite ... and ALL their
          > cavalry and artilley is Elite? Hmmm ..." and I have to agree. A
          > similar statement might be made about the French, although they have
          > a few lower ratings toward the end. Then when I look at the
          > other, 'lesser known' armies, most of them seem to have a more
          > balanced build up.
          > > >
          > > >So the question I then get is "Why?" followed by examples of why
          > ratings should be more, or less (especially of the British, as my
          > friends and I are Dutch). To name but a few:
          > > > - Revolutionary War's British in Flanders were noted by other
          > countries as below average or at least not above it.
          > > > - the artillery did not perform all that Elite at Waterloo, if
          > one reads non-British accounts
          > > > - the heavy cavalry was confident and had big horses, but being
          > impetuous does not make one Elite, and how come the British ally
          > Hannover has similar ratings (except for the Hussars that all seem to
          > get the blame for that 'famous' regiment that fled to Brussels when
          > they were ordered to advance in the oppostie direction).
          > > >Of course, there are also examples of other countries, like the
          > conscript French foreign line cavalry regiments that once were
          > regular in their own army, and a lot of examples each national can
          > give of why certain units should be Elite or whatever.
          > > >
          > > >It seems to me that the more is known about a particular army, the
          > better it will be ... more and more units are singled out to be
          > Elite. Like an inflation of ratings.
          > > >
          > > >Pesonally I always felt that most Elite units did not deserve the
          > status, especially after they were on the march for more than a
          > couple of weeks. At least what I understood of memoires etc is that
          > attrition by illness, accidents, skirmishes etc soon diluted the
          > percentage of Elite persons with new ones taken either from line
          > units or (more often? What commander wants to lose his best men?)
          > from depots and recruits back home. This is espcecially true of
          > cavalry, that had even bigger problems with their horses (here the
          > French were worse off than the others, IIRC). Of course, one might
          > then state that the same goes for other units, so the overall rating
          > goes down all across the line. But we use a fixed upper and lower
          > limit, so that does not work.
          > > >Many 'elite' units would also have far better PR (both before and
          > after battles) then their non-elite and foreign colleagues, adding to
          > their perceived but undeserved status.
          > > >
          > > >My question then is: Why do we not restrict the number of Elites
          > in an army to an absolute minimum? If needed, you could give units
          > a '-' for not having been in battle before or a '+' for being very
          > experienced, although that would add extra ratings (and lots of
          > discussion) and I personally think the limit of ratings to 3 is
          > better (and after all, we still have the die to make that kind of
          > differences for us).
          > > >
          > > >Bouko
          > > >
          > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >





          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT





          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NapoleonicFireandFury/

          b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          NapoleonicFireandFury-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Stephen Schmidt
          I realize this is probably a recurring discussion, but as I m new here, perhaps I can be forgiving for sparking its latest outbreak :) I have recently read
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I realize this is probably a recurring discussion, but as
            I'm new here, perhaps I can be forgiving for sparking its
            latest outbreak :)

            I have recently read _Galloping at Everything_ by Ian
            Fletcher, suggesting that the quality of British cavalry
            was higher than it has historically been regarded as
            being. Is that an influence on British cavalry being
            elite in the rules? If so, how confident are we in
            Fletcher's conclusions? I haven't read many reviews of
            the book but the ones I have read are not good, and
            I didn't fully accept some of the book's claims myself.
            In particular, I thought the book clearly showed that,
            contrary to the author's claims, the KGL cavalry was
            better than the British.

            I agree that in general troop ratings are hard to make
            in anything other than a fairly ad hoc way. The problem
            is compounded by the fact that experience matters quite
            a lot too. In any single game it's hard to isolate those
            two factors. In a multiple-campaign game, where experience
            can accumulate over campaigns, it can be done.

            Steve
          • COL (R) Bill Gray
            I ve not read the book, but I think the issue with British/KGL horse is how you define quality. I gave them Elite status not only because of record, but also
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I've not read the book, but I think the issue with British/KGL horse
              is how you define quality. I gave them Elite status not only because
              of record, but also Wellington's belief that at the trooper thru
              squadron level his cavalry would beat anything the French put in the
              field. However, above that point the good Duke was mortified at the
              prospect due to his cavalry's inability to maintain control and keep
              order. In that regard I believe the KGL horse would rank better, thus
              better overall.

              In AOE this situation does not mean British horse isn't Elite, it
              means they need a rule to force them to charge the moon, especially in
              Breakthrough.

              Ciao, Bill Gray

              --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Schmidt
              <schmidsj@u...> wrote:
              >
              > I realize this is probably a recurring discussion, but as
              > I'm new here, perhaps I can be forgiving for sparking its
              > latest outbreak :)
              >
              > I have recently read _Galloping at Everything_ by Ian
              > Fletcher, suggesting that the quality of British cavalry
              > was higher than it has historically been regarded as
              > being. Is that an influence on British cavalry being
              > elite in the rules? If so, how confident are we in
              > Fletcher's conclusions? I haven't read many reviews of
              > the book but the ones I have read are not good, and
              > I didn't fully accept some of the book's claims myself.
              > In particular, I thought the book clearly showed that,
              > contrary to the author's claims, the KGL cavalry was
              > better than the British.
              >
              > I agree that in general troop ratings are hard to make
              > in anything other than a fairly ad hoc way. The problem
              > is compounded by the fact that experience matters quite
              > a lot too. In any single game it's hard to isolate those
              > two factors. In a multiple-campaign game, where experience
              > can accumulate over campaigns, it can be done.
              >
              > Steve
            • Bill Haggart
              I also think rating of the KGL and British horse would be a matter of when . There are numerous descriptions of the training or the lack of training British
              Message 6 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I also think rating of the KGL and British horse would be a matter of
                "when".

                There are numerous descriptions of the training or the lack of training
                British horse regiments received before going to the Pennisula. I don't know
                if Ian covers this, but it was very poor. If the British cavalry 'galloped
                at everything, ' it was because they were only trained to charge. The
                British cavalry continually surprised the French pickets and cavalry
                deployed in skirmishing. No matter what the situation or the size of the
                forces, the British would charge.

                One reason that Wellington had his corps of "observing officers" was that
                the British cavalry was really poor at reconnaissance.

                The British cavalry did get better during the war, of course, through some
                hard experience. However, the French were far more thorough in training
                their horses and the KGL took much better care of theirs.

                Bill H.
              • jconeil@outb.com
                The two points in the favor of the British Heavy Cavalry were that they were mounted on good solid horses (The French were always happy to acquire British
                Message 7 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  The two points in the favor of the British Heavy Cavalry were that they
                  were mounted on good solid horses (The French were always happy to acquire
                  British mounts, by whatever means), even if the horses were not always
                  well cared for, and that when the British did charge, they were
                  "maginficent" to quote Napoleon. I have never heard anyone depreciate the
                  effect of their charges, just the waste, when they couldn't regroup and
                  didn't restrain their pursuit, ending up destroyed in detail by whatever
                  Cavalry was around to police them up... Cossacks would have been
                  sufficient I suppose.
                  It was a one shot deal ... they charged...cleaned out what was in front of
                  them, and if you were fortunate, some made it back to your side for use in
                  another battle. "Elite" seems to be mainly a Battle function, which these
                  guys did well ... then they were blown and disorganized, which should deal
                  with it adequately for a properly prepared Frenchman.
                  Various sources over the years have stated that the British Light
                  Cavalry was better trained and less likely to go out of control, than
                  the Heavies. I have not researched this, but it seems logical, as they
                  were used more and got at least some influence from the KGL...

                  Jim O'Neil

                  > I also think rating of the KGL and British horse would be a matter of
                  > "when".
                  >
                  > There are numerous descriptions of the training or the lack of training
                  > British horse regiments received before going to the Pennisula. I don't
                  > know
                  > if Ian covers this, but it was very poor. If the British cavalry
                  > 'galloped
                  > at everything, ' it was because they were only trained to charge. The
                  > British cavalry continually surprised the French pickets and cavalry
                  > deployed in skirmishing. No matter what the situation or the size of the
                  > forces, the British would charge.
                  >
                  > One reason that Wellington had his corps of "observing
                  > officers" was that
                  > the British cavalry was really poor at reconnaissance.
                  >
                  > The British cavalry did get better during the war, of course, through
                  > some
                  > hard experience. However, the French were far more thorough in training
                  > their horses and the KGL took much better care of theirs.
                  >
                  > Bill H.
                  >
                • Nick The Lemming
                  You appear to have misspelled Yorkshireman. ... === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want -
                  Message 8 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You appear to have misspelled Yorkshireman.

                    :)


                    --- Geoff Wootten <gawmar@...> wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > Look guys, we go through this every few months. Lets
                    > be clear about
                    > it: the simple truth is that GOD is an ENGLISHMAN.
                    >
                    > Nuff said.
                    >
                    >
                    > Geoff
                    >
                    > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "COL
                    > (Ret) Bill Gray"
                    > <hmgs1@h...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Personally I kinda agree with you on this, and in
                    > reality the LAF
                    > system
                    > > actually supports your conclusion in a hidden,
                    > discreet way.
                    > Consider
                    > > this, if you take a look at Empire III+, the ACE
                    > (Actual Combat
                    > > Effectiveness) of the lowest regular troop type is
                    > 8 (Conscript
                    > Line)
                    > > while Guards have an ACE of 18. IIRC, and assuming
                    > all other
                    > factors are
                    > > equal, this means that on a head to head matchup
                    > the Guards have a
                    > 100%
                    > > to win - an automatic victory.
                    > >
                    > > In LAF under the same conditions the only
                    > advantage the Guards
                    > (Elite)
                    > > would have is a +2 to the die roll, which still
                    > gives the lowly
                    > > Conscripts a decent chance of victory though
                    > certainly the Elites
                    > have
                    > > the advantage. In other words, while there might
                    > be a lot of Elites
                    > in
                    > > the game, this designation has not near the impact
                    > as in other
                    > games.
                    > > Thus if you would like to reduce the number of
                    > Elites in the game,
                    > > really no problem here on my part. In the final
                    > measure the Troop
                    > Rating
                    > > is somewhat subjective anyway, and even if you
                    > made the entire
                    > British
                    > > army Regular status, the results would not be as
                    > severe as one
                    > might think.
                    > >
                    > > There are a lot of reasons why I made the game
                    > this way, but one is
                    > just
                    > > a personal belief that so-called Elite troops
                    > during this period
                    > were
                    > > not THAT much better, certainly not as much as
                    > some game systems
                    > would
                    > > have you believe.
                    > >
                    > > Regards, Bill Gray
                    > >
                    > > Bouko J. de Groot wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >Hi all,
                    > > >
                    > > >The unit rating chart says "Modifications and
                    > suggestions are not
                    > only welcome, but encouraged.", so here is my try.
                    > > >
                    > > >When I show the rules to players not familiar
                    > with it, a standard
                    > remark is " Well, the British have a lot of Elite
                    > ... and ALL their
                    > cavalry and artilley is Elite? Hmmm ..." and I have
                    > to agree. A
                    > similar statement might be made about the French,
                    > although they have
                    > a few lower ratings toward the end. Then when I look
                    > at the
                    > other, 'lesser known' armies, most of them seem to
                    > have a more
                    > balanced build up.
                    > > >
                    > > >So the question I then get is "Why?" followed by
                    > examples of why
                    > ratings should be more, or less (especially of the
                    > British, as my
                    > friends and I are Dutch). To name but a few:
                    > > > - Revolutionary War's British in Flanders were
                    > noted by other
                    > countries as below average or at least not above it.
                    >
                    > > > - the artillery did not perform all that Elite
                    > at Waterloo, if
                    > one reads non-British accounts
                    > > > - the heavy cavalry was confident and had big
                    > horses, but being
                    > impetuous does not make one Elite, and how come the
                    > British ally
                    > Hannover has similar ratings (except for the Hussars
                    > that all seem to
                    > get the blame for that 'famous' regiment that fled
                    > to Brussels when
                    > they were ordered to advance in the oppostie
                    > direction).
                    > > >Of course, there are also examples of other
                    > countries, like the
                    > conscript French foreign line cavalry regiments that
                    > once were
                    > regular in their own army, and a lot of examples
                    > each national can
                    > give of why certain units should be Elite or
                    > whatever.
                    > > >
                    > > >It seems to me that the more is known about a
                    > particular army, the
                    > better it will be ... more and more units are
                    > singled out to be
                    > Elite. Like an inflation of ratings.
                    > > >
                    > > >Pesonally I always felt that most Elite units did
                    > not deserve the
                    > status, especially after they were on the march for
                    > more than a
                    > couple of weeks. At least what I understood of
                    > memoires etc is that
                    > attrition by illness, accidents, skirmishes etc soon
                    > diluted the
                    > percentage of Elite persons with new ones taken
                    > either from line
                    > units or (more often? What commander wants to lose
                    > his best men?)
                    > from depots and recruits back home. This is
                    > espcecially true of
                    > cavalry, that had even bigger problems with their
                    > horses (here the
                    > French were worse off than the others, IIRC). Of
                    > course, one might
                    > then state that the same goes for other units, so
                    > the overall rating
                    > goes down all across the line. But we use a fixed
                    > upper and lower
                    > limit, so that does not work.
                    > > >Many 'elite' units would also have far better PR
                    > (both before and
                    > after battles) then their non-elite and foreign
                    > colleagues, adding to
                    > their perceived but undeserved status.
                    > > >
                    > > >My question then is: Why do we not restrict the
                    > number of Elites
                    > in an army to an absolute minimum? If needed, you
                    > could give units
                    > a '-' for not having been in battle before or a '+'
                    > for being very
                    > experienced, although that would add extra ratings
                    > (and lots of
                    > discussion) and I personally think the limit of
                    > ratings to 3 is
                    > better (and after all, we still have the die to make
                    > that kind of
                    > differences for us).
                    > > >
                    > > >Bouko
                    > > >
                    > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been
                    > removed]
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                    > removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    === message truncated ===




                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
                    http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                  • mrieder@uwo.ca
                    A lot of the quality of cavalry has to do with what it rides on, i.e. the quality of horses, and the Brits had the best horses in Europe for a good hunk of
                    Message 9 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      A lot of the quality of cavalry has to do with what it rides on, i.e. the
                      quality of horses, and the Brits had the best horses in Europe for a good hunk
                      of the 19th century, up to and including the Crimea. The quality of
                      leadership, on the other hand, was more problematic (i.e. the quote about Brit
                      cavalry officers just not being able to know when to stop charging).

                      MJR
                      >
                      > I realize this is probably a recurring discussion, but as
                      > I'm new here, perhaps I can be forgiving for sparking its
                      > latest outbreak :)
                      >
                      > I have recently read _Galloping at Everything_ by Ian
                      > Fletcher, suggesting that the quality of British cavalry
                      > was higher than it has historically been regarded as
                      > being. Is that an influence on British cavalry being
                      > elite in the rules? If so, how confident are we in
                      > Fletcher's conclusions? I haven't read many reviews of
                      > the book but the ones I have read are not good, and
                      > I didn't fully accept some of the book's claims myself.
                      > In particular, I thought the book clearly showed that,
                      > contrary to the author's claims, the KGL cavalry was
                      > better than the British.
                      >
                      > I agree that in general troop ratings are hard to make
                      > in anything other than a fairly ad hoc way. The problem
                      > is compounded by the fact that experience matters quite
                      > a lot too. In any single game it's hard to isolate those
                      > two factors. In a multiple-campaign game, where experience
                      > can accumulate over campaigns, it can be done.
                      >
                      > Steve
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • William D. Ponder
                      What we call the Torpedo Rule for British cavalry. Once fired (charge) it can never be called back until no enemy is in charge/breakthrough range. KGL are
                      Message 10 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        What we call the "Torpedo Rule" for British cavalry. "Once fired
                        (charge) it can never be called back until no enemy is in
                        charge/breakthrough range." KGL are exempt from this rule. So KGL is
                        the prefered British cavalry in a game.

                        ---Bill Ponder

                        =====================================================================

                        --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "COL (R) Bill Gray"
                        <hmgs1@h...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > I've not read the book, but I think the issue with British/KGL
                        horse
                        > is how you define quality. I gave them Elite status not only
                        because
                        > of record, but also Wellington's belief that at the trooper thru
                        > squadron level his cavalry would beat anything the French put in
                        the
                        > field. However, above that point the good Duke was mortified at the
                        > prospect due to his cavalry's inability to maintain control and
                        keep
                        > order. In that regard I believe the KGL horse would rank better,
                        thus
                        > better overall.
                        >
                        > In AOE this situation does not mean British horse isn't Elite, it
                        > means they need a rule to force them to charge the moon,
                        especially in
                        > Breakthrough.
                        >
                        > Ciao, Bill Gray
                      • Tim Wilson
                        Except that there s only so many KGLs to go around... ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile
                        Message 11 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Except that there's only so many KGLs to go around...


                          --- "William D. Ponder" <continental_line@...>
                          wrote:

                          >
                          > What we call the "Torpedo Rule" for British cavalry.
                          > "Once fired
                          > (charge) it can never be called back until no enemy
                          > is in
                          > charge/breakthrough range." KGL are exempt from this
                          > rule. So KGL is
                          > the prefered British cavalry in a game.
                          >
                          > ---Bill Ponder
                          >
                          >
                          =====================================================================
                          >
                          > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "COL
                          > (R) Bill Gray"
                          > <hmgs1@h...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > I've not read the book, but I think the issue with
                          > British/KGL
                          > horse
                          > > is how you define quality. I gave them Elite
                          > status not only
                          > because
                          > > of record, but also Wellington's belief that at
                          > the trooper thru
                          > > squadron level his cavalry would beat anything the
                          > French put in
                          > the
                          > > field. However, above that point the good Duke was
                          > mortified at the
                          > > prospect due to his cavalry's inability to
                          > maintain control and
                          > keep
                          > > order. In that regard I believe the KGL horse
                          > would rank better,
                          > thus
                          > > better overall.
                          > >
                          > > In AOE this situation does not mean British horse
                          > isn't Elite, it
                          > > means they need a rule to force them to charge the
                          > moon,
                          > especially in
                          > > Breakthrough.
                          > >
                          > > Ciao, Bill Gray
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >




                          __________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                          http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
                        • William D. Ponder
                          The the fun part of the rule. You only have only so many KGLs to go around . So you have to take care of the few trustworthy cavalry you have. It is a
                          Message 12 of 15 , Dec 2, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The the fun part of the rule. You only have "only so many KGLs to go
                            around". So you have to take care of the few "trustworthy" cavalry
                            you have. It is a simple rule that dosen't make British cavalry
                            anyless Elite just harder to control.

                            ---Bill Ponder

                            =====================================================================

                            --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, Tim Wilson
                            <vilsonov@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Except that there's only so many KGLs to go around...
                            >
                            >
                            > --- "William D. Ponder" <continental_line@y...>
                            > wrote:
                            >
                            > >
                            > > What we call the "Torpedo Rule" for British cavalry.
                            > > "Once fired
                            > > (charge) it can never be called back until no enemy
                            > > is in
                            > > charge/breakthrough range." KGL are exempt from this
                            > > rule. So KGL is
                            > > the prefered British cavalry in a game.
                            > >
                            > > ---Bill Ponder
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            =====================================================================
                            > >
                            > > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "COL
                            > > (R) Bill Gray"
                            > > <hmgs1@h...> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > I've not read the book, but I think the issue with
                            > > British/KGL
                            > > horse
                            > > > is how you define quality. I gave them Elite
                            > > status not only
                            > > because
                            > > > of record, but also Wellington's belief that at
                            > > the trooper thru
                            > > > squadron level his cavalry would beat anything the
                            > > French put in
                            > > the
                            > > > field. However, above that point the good Duke was
                            > > mortified at the
                            > > > prospect due to his cavalry's inability to
                            > > maintain control and
                            > > keep
                            > > > order. In that regard I believe the KGL horse
                            > > would rank better,
                            > > thus
                            > > > better overall.
                            > > >
                            > > > In AOE this situation does not mean British horse
                            > > isn't Elite, it
                            > > > means they need a rule to force them to charge the
                            > > moon,
                            > > especially in
                            > > > Breakthrough.
                            > > >
                            > > > Ciao, Bill Gray
                          • Geoff Wootten
                            lol geoff ... asked Why ... would trust ... about ... Gray ... LAF ... have a ... Elites ... Elites ... game, ... Troop ... one is ... not ... standard ...
                            Message 13 of 15 , Dec 3, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              lol

                              geoff


                              --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, mrieder@u... wrote:
                              > Geoff:
                              >
                              > As per the old adage, I recall when a sage of the 19th century was
                              asked "Why
                              > the sun never set on the British Empire", he replied, "Not even God
                              would trust
                              > an Englishman in the dark"
                              >
                              > MJR
                              >
                              > > Look guys, we go through this every few months. Lets be clear
                              about
                              > > it: the simple truth is that GOD is an ENGLISHMAN.
                              > >
                              > > Nuff said.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Geoff
                              > >
                              > > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "COL (Ret) Bill
                              Gray"
                              > > <hmgs1@h...> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Personally I kinda agree with you on this, and in reality the
                              LAF
                              > > system
                              > > > actually supports your conclusion in a hidden, discreet way.
                              > > Consider
                              > > > this, if you take a look at Empire III+, the ACE (Actual Combat
                              > > > Effectiveness) of the lowest regular troop type is 8 (Conscript
                              > > Line)
                              > > > while Guards have an ACE of 18. IIRC, and assuming all other
                              > > factors are
                              > > > equal, this means that on a head to head matchup the Guards
                              have a
                              > > 100%
                              > > > to win - an automatic victory.
                              > > >
                              > > > In LAF under the same conditions the only advantage the Guards
                              > > (Elite)
                              > > > would have is a +2 to the die roll, which still gives the lowly
                              > > > Conscripts a decent chance of victory though certainly the
                              Elites
                              > > have
                              > > > the advantage. In other words, while there might be a lot of
                              Elites
                              > > in
                              > > > the game, this designation has not near the impact as in other
                              > > games.
                              > > > Thus if you would like to reduce the number of Elites in the
                              game,
                              > > > really no problem here on my part. In the final measure the
                              Troop
                              > > Rating
                              > > > is somewhat subjective anyway, and even if you made the entire
                              > > British
                              > > > army Regular status, the results would not be as severe as one
                              > > might think.
                              > > >
                              > > > There are a lot of reasons why I made the game this way, but
                              one is
                              > > just
                              > > > a personal belief that so-called Elite troops during this period
                              > > were
                              > > > not THAT much better, certainly not as much as some game systems
                              > > would
                              > > > have you believe.
                              > > >
                              > > > Regards, Bill Gray
                              > > >
                              > > > Bouko J. de Groot wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > >Hi all,
                              > > > >
                              > > > >The unit rating chart says "Modifications and suggestions are
                              not
                              > > only welcome, but encouraged.", so here is my try.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >When I show the rules to players not familiar with it, a
                              standard
                              > > remark is " Well, the British have a lot of Elite ... and ALL
                              their
                              > > cavalry and artilley is Elite? Hmmm ..." and I have to agree. A
                              > > similar statement might be made about the French, although they
                              have
                              > > a few lower ratings toward the end. Then when I look at the
                              > > other, 'lesser known' armies, most of them seem to have a more
                              > > balanced build up.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >So the question I then get is "Why?" followed by examples of
                              why
                              > > ratings should be more, or less (especially of the British, as my
                              > > friends and I are Dutch). To name but a few:
                              > > > > - Revolutionary War's British in Flanders were noted by other
                              > > countries as below average or at least not above it.
                              > > > > - the artillery did not perform all that Elite at Waterloo, if
                              > > one reads non-British accounts
                              > > > > - the heavy cavalry was confident and had big horses, but
                              being
                              > > impetuous does not make one Elite, and how come the British ally
                              > > Hannover has similar ratings (except for the Hussars that all
                              seem to
                              > > get the blame for that 'famous' regiment that fled to Brussels
                              when
                              > > they were ordered to advance in the oppostie direction).
                              > > > >Of course, there are also examples of other countries, like the
                              > > conscript French foreign line cavalry regiments that once were
                              > > regular in their own army, and a lot of examples each national can
                              > > give of why certain units should be Elite or whatever.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >It seems to me that the more is known about a particular army,
                              the
                              > > better it will be ... more and more units are singled out to be
                              > > Elite. Like an inflation of ratings.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >Pesonally I always felt that most Elite units did not deserve
                              the
                              > > status, especially after they were on the march for more than a
                              > > couple of weeks. At least what I understood of memoires etc is
                              that
                              > > attrition by illness, accidents, skirmishes etc soon diluted the
                              > > percentage of Elite persons with new ones taken either from line
                              > > units or (more often? What commander wants to lose his best men?)
                              > > from depots and recruits back home. This is espcecially true of
                              > > cavalry, that had even bigger problems with their horses (here the
                              > > French were worse off than the others, IIRC). Of course, one might
                              > > then state that the same goes for other units, so the overall
                              rating
                              > > goes down all across the line. But we use a fixed upper and lower
                              > > limit, so that does not work.
                              > > > >Many 'elite' units would also have far better PR (both before
                              and
                              > > after battles) then their non-elite and foreign colleagues,
                              adding to
                              > > their perceived but undeserved status.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >My question then is: Why do we not restrict the number of
                              Elites
                              > > in an army to an absolute minimum? If needed, you could give units
                              > > a '-' for not having been in battle before or a '+' for being very
                              > > experienced, although that would add extra ratings (and lots of
                              > > discussion) and I personally think the limit of ratings to 3 is
                              > > better (and after all, we still have the die to make that kind of
                              > > differences for us).
                              > > > >
                              > > > >Bouko
                              > > > >
                              > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.